Baynard+v.+Malone

Kristee Glace & Eric Miller Baynard v. Malone, 268 F. 3d 228 - Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 2001 Argued: June 6, 2001. Decided: September 26, 2001.

Prior to and during the 1990-91 school year, Craig J. Lawson was employed by the ACSB as a sixth-grade teacher at Charles Barrett Elementary School, where Malone was the principal. In March 1990, a former student of Lawson's, Steven Leckie, met with Malone and informed her that he had been sexually molested by Lawson when he (Leckie) was a sixth-grade student, some 15 years earlier. Leckie warned Malone that Lawson was a pedophile and advised her to watch out for certain behavior by Lawson, such as spending extra time with a student. Leckie stated, however, that he was not interested in pressing charges against Lawson. The following day, Leckie's mother telephoned Malone and confirmed her son's story. Malone took no action after receiving this information and did not relay the information to anyone. She did not report the alleged incident to Child Protective Services (CPS) because of Leckie's unwillingness to become involved in a police investigation. Later that spring, an unidentified woman informed Malone during a school function that Lawson had sexually molested a student. Malone did not take the woman's name or make any record of this conversation. The courts decided that Malone had actual knowledge that Lawson posed a serious risk and that she had the authority (but failed) to institute corrective measures to address this risk. That is sufficient under //Gebser// to hold the school board liable under Title IX. A school district can be liable for teacher-student sexual harassment under Title IX only if a school official who had actual knowledge of the abuse was invested by the school board with the duty to supervise the employee and the power to take action that would end such abuse and failed to do so. This court case demonstrates the responsibilities that teachers and administration are obligated to uphold or perform due to their involvement with the public. This case also shows that teachers must report anything and everything that is questionable or may raise concerns. This is a huge burden to deal with as so many incidents or pieces of conversations have the potential to be taken out of context and we as teachers are obligated to respond accordingly in the greater interest of the child.
 * Background**
 * Decision & Rational**
 * Impact on teaching**

(True/False) A teacher that witnesses a questionable incident is required to report it to the appropriate authorities.